CAR_Public/110328.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 61

                             Headlines

AAA CREDIT: Sued for Violation of FDCPA
ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Defends Class Suit Over Home Defects
AMBASSADOR'S GROUP: Plumbers Union Suit Receives Class Status
AMERICAN ZURICH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
BAYER PHARMA: "Executive News Summary" May Trigger Class Action

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA: Cannon Hill Residents Mull Class Action
CHICO'S FAS: Defends "Privacy" Class Suit in California
CHICO'S FAS: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Abductions
CITIBANK: Still Awaits Ruling on Appeals From Settlement Approval

CITIBANK: Still Defends "Merchant" Class Suit in New York
CITICORP INC: Calif. Court Dismisses "Scala" Class Suit
CLEARWIRE INC: Calif. Suit Complains About Internet Service
CONSUMERINFO.COM: Accused in Calif. Suit of Defrauding Customers
DIGITALPOST INTERACTIVE: Defends "Leite" Lawsuit in California

DSW INC: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over RVI Proposed Merger
EISAI INC: Accused of Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
ENTERTAINMENT SHOPPING: Accused of Running Online Lotteries
EXPRESS INC: Negotiating Terms of Calif. Class Suit Settlement
FARMLAND FOODS: Protective Order Denied in "Morales" Class Suit

FASTFUNDING CO: Fla. Court Reverses Arbitrator Ruling
FINCORP: Sandhurst Trustees Agree to Settle Class Action
HANOVER FINANCE: Turner Hopkins Mull Investor Class Action
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Class Suits
KING ARCHITECTURAL: 7th Circuit Remands CE Design Suit

LEXXIOM INC: Sued Over Bogus Debt Reduction Services
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Zicam Securities Class Action Can Proceed
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Class Actions to Be Merged
NEW JERSEY: NJ App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of "Lerro" Class Suit
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Class Status Denied in Amended Lifschitz Suit

NORTHWEST PIPE: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss to Conclude May 24
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in New York
OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
PERPETUAL TRUST: Turner Hopkins Mulls Investor Class Action
PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Defends Class Suits Over Investigations

RADIENT PHARMA: Accused by NYSE Amex of Misleading Investors
RENTECH INC: Settles Suits Over Fin'l Restatements for $1.8MM
SEPTA: Trial Court Declaration in "Houston" Suit Upheld
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TENET HEALTHCARE: To Settle Class Action Over Patient Deaths

TOYOTA MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek to Preserve Securities Claims
TRANS UNION CORP: Dist. Ct. Denies Motions to Clarify in MDL Case
WELLS FARGO: Loses $3.5-Mil. Lending Discrimination Class Action
WELLS REAL ESTATE: Trial Date for Piedmont REIT Suit to be Set



                             *********

AAA CREDIT: Sued for Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------
Teresita Palces, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AAA Credit Service Collection Agency, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-01355 (N.D. Calif. March 21, 2011), accuses AAA of (a) using
false, deceptive and misleading representations or means in
connection with the collection of an alleged debt by overshadowing
and contradicting the validation notice required by 15 U.S.C.
1692g; (b) using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect an alleged debt; and (c) failing to provide the
consumer with an effective validation notice.

Plaintiff Palces is 67 years old and resides in San Mateo County.
Defendant AAA, a debt collector within the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., is a California
corporation.  Plaintiff incurred a consumer debt to an entity
known as "Intouch Wireless Inc.", which debt was assigned to
defendant for collection.

Plaintiff relates that defendant sent its initial collection
letter, which was dated Feb. 23, 2011, to plaintiff in an effort
to collect the debt.  The letter set forth the validation notice
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(a),(3),(4).  The collection
letter stated that plaintiff had 30 days from receipt of the
letter to dispute the debt or any portion thereof, otherwise the
office will assume that the debt is valid.  Ms. Palces states,
however, that the validation notice was overshadowed and
contradicted by language in the letter that stated:

  "To avoid attempts at further collection, the balance in full
   must be received by 2/28/11.  Please make your payment payable
   to AAA Credit Service."

Plaintiff says the language in defendant's letter would mislead
the least sophisticated debtor as to debtor's rights and therefore
undermine the effectiveness of the validation notice.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg, Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          145 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, CA 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          E-mail: irvberg@comcast.net


ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Defends Class Suit Over Home Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit over defects found in the construction of certain homes,
according to the Company's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

On September 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. completed its
liquidation by contributing all of its remaining assets to ALP
Liquidating Trust, subject to all of the Partnership's
obligations and liabilities.  Arvida Company, an affiliate of the
former general partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator
of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  On May 9,
2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended complaint
seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with
the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward
County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were
inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were
improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm
protection systems.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the
class to include other homes in Weston.  The motion to expand the
class was denied.  The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010.
The case did not settle.  The Arvida defendants have filed their
answer to the amended complaint.  The Arvida defendants believe
that they have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously
defend themselves.  The court concluded its hearings on the motion
to certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and
certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010.  On
October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order.  The case is being briefed on
appeal. The case was set for further mediation on February 24,
2011.  The mediation was held and the case did not settle.
Certain aspects of the underlying claim will continue while the
case is on appeal on the issue of certification.  The Partnership
is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure that it may
have for this matter.  This case has been tendered to one of the
Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance
Company, for defense and indemnity.  Zurich is providing a defense
of this matter under a purported reservation of rights.  The
Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection with this
lawsuit.  The ultimate legal and financial liability of the
Partnership, if any, in this matter cannot be estimated with
certainty at this time.  The Partnership is unable to determine
the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees and damages, if any,
which will be covered by its insurance.


AMBASSADOR'S GROUP: Plumbers Union Suit Receives Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Justin L. Quackenbush granted class
certification of the action entitled Plumbers Union Local No. 12
Pension Fund v. Et Al. v. Ambassador's Group, et al., Case No. CV-
09-00214-JLQ (E.D. Wash.).

The class is defined as "all persons who purchased Ambassadors
Group, Inc. publicly-traded securities on the open market between
July 24, 2007 and October 23, 2007, excluding Defendants, the
officers and directors of Ambassadors Group, Inc. at all relevant
times, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Ambassadors Group, Inc. had or has a controlling interest."

Plaintiffs state that during the class period,  Ambassadors Group
had over 20 million shares of outstanding common stock that was
publicly traded on NASDAQ.  They contend that common questions of
law and fact exist as to whether the federal securities laws were
violated by Defendants' actions; whether statements made by
Defendants to the investing public during the class period omitted
or misrepresented material facts about the business, financial and
operational results; and whether Defendants acted with the
requisite state of mind.

Plaintiffs claim that they purchased common stock of Ambassador
Group and allegedly suffered damages as a consequence of
Defendants' alleged false and misleading statements.

MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan has been appointed
as class representative.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed as class counsel,
and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is appointed as class liaison
counsel.

A copy of the District Court's March 17, 2011 certification order
is available at http://is.gd/fxSxoRfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN ZURICH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Cora Bucklin, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. American Zurich Insurance Company, Case No.
11-cv-01348 (N.D. Calif. March 21, 2011), accuses the defendant of
non-payment of overtime wages, failure to provide class members
with meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide class members
with accurate itemized statements of wages earned.

American Zurich operates as a subsidiary of Zurich Financial
Services Group which was originally founded in 1872 and is
headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland.  Zurich, the largest
construction insurer and franchised auto dealer insurer in North
America, operates 9 home and field offices throughout California,
including an office in San Francisco.

Plaintiff Cora Bucklin was employed by defendant in California as
a Senior Claims Examiner from April 2005 to December 2010.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Website: http://www.bamlawca.com/


BAYER PHARMA: "Executive News Summary" May Trigger Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
"Executive News Summary" that acknowledged "that the proportion of
women in executive positions at Bayer is too small," the health-
care giant set itself up for the federal class action it now
faces.  "Labeling women 'the fairer sex,' the article described
women as prone to 'mood swings,' 'indecision,' and
'backstabbing,'" the class claims -- and that's not all.

"The article stated that a majority of men and women polled prefer
to work for a male manager because men are 'easier to deal with'
and 'much less likely to have a hidden agenda, suffer mood swings
or get involved in office politics,'" the complaint states.

It continues: "The article concluded that 'women with power are
"loose canons" who often feel threatened by colleagues.'

"When female employees have complained to upper-level management
about discrimination, they have been told, 'You know better.  The
Company won't do anything about that.'  Corroborating this lack of
concern, the Company's Human Resources Department ('HR') has
responded to complaints by characterizing gender discrimination as
'a grey area' that should be handled by the employee, not the
Company.

"In attempting to seek resolution through HR, female employees
have met a common refrain: 'This is just the way it is, deal with
it.'

"Bayer has created a workplace in which Vice Presidents can
announce with impunity that they are 'never hiring another woman
over 40 again.  They're all crazy!' or can dictate that the only
kind of working mothers who can succeed are ones who hire full-
time nannies or otherwise abdicate their child-rearing
responsibilities.  In fact, a senior manager has announced that he
'needed to stop hiring women of reproductive age.'

"Members of Human Resources have explicitly stated that the
Company considers having young children a liability when
considering advancement opportunities.  In fact, a Vice President
has specifically indicated that because a female employee availed
herself of maternity leave, she was not promoted to a Director-
level position.'"

Suing for the class, six women filed the complaint against Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corp. and nine top Bayer
executives.

The women allege "company-wide discriminatory treatment of its
female employees on the basis of their gender, their taking
federal and state-protected leave and their status as pregnant
women or primary-caregiving mothers."

Bayer, acknowledges its lack of female leadership, creates an
environment that is hostile to women and hinders "the success and
advancement of female employees," as demonstrated in its 2010
"Executive News Summary" that "suggested the superiority of men
for management roles," according to the 85-page complaint.

Defendants, many of whose titles seem ironic, include Herm Cukier,
"Vice President of Brand Management for Long-Acting Contraception
in Women's Healthcare at Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals;" Denise
D'Agostino, director of Human Resources at Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals; Susan Herster, "Senior Director of Market
Research in Women's Healthcare at Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals;" Sean Kolb-Hunt, vice president of Human
Resources at Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Duncan Lamb, "Vice
President of Business Analytics in Women's Healthcare at Bayer
HealthCare Pharmaceuticals;" Leslie North, "Vice President of
Brand Management for Short-Term Contraception in Women's
Healthcare at Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals;" Stefan Oelrich,
"Vice President and General Manager of Women's Healthcare at Bayer
HealthCare Pharmaceuticals;" Robert Rosen, vice president of
global oncology; and Todd Williamson, vice president for health
outcomes and outcomes research.

The class seeks punitive damages, an order establishing an
equality and fairness task force, implementation of female
advancement programs and an order restoring them to the jobs "they
would now be occupying," if not for discriminatory practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Barghout, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc.
11135 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on March 21, 2011 (D. N.J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/BayerCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER,LLP
          440 West Street
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 585-5288
          E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com

               - and -

          Katherine M. Kimpel, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 310
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 742-7777
          E-mail: kkimpel@swhlegal.com

               - and -

          Grant Morris, D.C., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GRANT E.MORRIS
          1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 310
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 742-7783


BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA: Cannon Hill Residents Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strachan, writing for South-East Advertiser, reports that
Cannon Hill residents have threatened a class action against
Brisbane City Council if elements of the draft River Gateway
Neighbourhood Plan Strategy go ahead.

Local residents are angry with the plan, which could see medium-
density housing approved on low-density "residential A" streets
south of Wynnum Rd.

The Cannon Hill Action Group has formed to fight some of the
proposed changes.  The group has door-knocked more than 500 houses
in the suburb.

In a survey compiled by the group, residents listed increased
traffic congestion, loss of property value and loss of privacy as
key concerns.

Cannon Hill Action group member and Shelly St. resident Matthew
Hodson praised the community for pulling together on the issue.

"You are dealing with people's lives; they feel like they are
being overridden," he said.  "At the end of the day, I knocked on
121 doors and only two people supported the plan."

Mr. Hodson said residents adjacent to the proposed higher-density
properties could consider legal action.

"If a four-storey building goes up next door you could lose
property value," he said.

"People have used their property as equity in their borrowings for
businesses.  If the bank re-valuated the property . . . they could
foreclose on the loan."

Councillor for Doboy John Campbell said the community had given a
strong negative response to the neighborhood plan.

"The ideas have not come from the neighborhood, they have come
from top down," he said.  Cr Campbell urged residents to continue
submissions.


CHICO'S FAS: Defends "Privacy" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., is defending itself against a class action suit
over violations of California's privacy laws, according to the
Company's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 29, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in February 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, Lorraine V. Garcia v. Chico's
FAS, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, requested or required customers to provide
personal information as a condition of accepting payment by credit
card. The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint
and will file its response by the required deadline. The Company
believes that the case is wholly without merit and, thus, does not
believe that the case should have any material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit over violations of California's wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended January 29, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Eileen Schlim v. Chico's
FAS, Inc. The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, and
vacation pay, among other things. The Company denies the material
allegations of the Complaint and will file its response by the
required deadline. The Company believes that its policies and
procedures for paying its associates comply with all applicable
California laws. As a result, the Company does not believe that
the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations.


CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Abductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge on March 23 cited a host of technical reasons to toss a
class action that accuses a Catholic lay organization of abducting
and trafficking impoverished children in a vast slave-labor
conspiracy conceived by the Australian government to populate the
country with "pure white stock" under its White Australia Policy.

After arriving, the children were systematically starved, beaten,
forced into slavery and, in some cases, sexually abused, according
to a suit filed against the Congregation of Christian Brothers and
other Catholic religious orders in December 2009.  Lead plaintiff
Emmanuel Ellul and two other self-described former child migrants
filed the complaint on behalf of an estimated 10,000 other former
child migrants.

The Australian Senate conducted an investigation and released a
report on the alleged abuse, with the country's Prime Minister
issuing a formal apology in 2009.

U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty dismissed the suit on March 23,
noting that the claims were time-barred and that the Order of
Sisters of Mercy is not a legal entity.  He also said that the
Congregation of Christian Brothers was improperly served, exists
outside the court's jurisdiction and is not the same entity
responsible for the trafficking.

"The complaint's allegations deal with a separate juridical entity
located in Australia, called 'Christian Brothers Oceania,'"
Judge Crotty wrote, noting that the Rome-based Congregation of
Christian Brothers (CCB) is legally distinct.

Instead of serving CCB in Rome, the class served a third entity:
the Congregation of Christian Brothers -- North American Province.

"While plaintiffs maintain that CCB controls all Christian
Brothers communities, there is no evidence or allegation that the
Australian organization of Christian Brothers was acting under the
control or authority of the Rome organization when the conduct
occurred," Judge Crotty wrote.  "Service on the North American
province is not good service on CCB (Rome), which is a separate
entity from the Christian Brothers Oceania which may have
committed wrongs in Australia."

The judge also concluded that the Order of the Sisters of Mercy
"is a generic term used to describe vowed religious women who
serve throughout the world," as members of one of nine autonomous
organizations, the judge found.

Judge Crotty found that the Roman Catholic Church had organized
the order under "pontifical right."

"This, however, is a religious determination, not a legal ruling,"
he wrote.

And as with CCB, the plaintiffs served the North American-based
Sisters of Mercy instead of the allegedly culpable Australian
organization.

Though the conspiracy allegedly spanned decades, the 10-year
statue of limitations under the Alien Tort Statute had expired,
Crotty ruled.  Equitable tolling is likewise inappropriate since
the plaintiffs have long known about the basis for the claims,
according to the ruling.

The attorney for the Order of the Sisters of Mercy, Michael
Biggers of Manhattan-based Bryan Cave, told Courthouse News that
the decision was "absolutely correct and totally fair."

The attorney for the Congregation of Christian Brothers, Anthony
Dougherty of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin in Manhattan, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

Neither did the plaintiffs' attorney, Himanshu Rajan Sharma of
Sharma & DeYoung, also in Manhattan.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Ellul, et al. v. Congregation
of Christian Brothers, et al., Case No. 09-cv-10590 (S.D.N.Y.), is
available at:

  http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/australianworkcamps.pdf


CITIBANK: Still Awaits Ruling on Appeals From Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citibank (South Dakota), National Association is still awaiting a
ruling on appeals made by certain parties regarding the approval
of a settlement in a class action lawsuit in New York, according
to Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company, certain of its affiliates, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa
International Service Association, MasterCard International
Incorporated and other banks are defendants in a consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action, originally brought on
behalf of certain United States holders of VISA, MasterCard and
Diners Club branded general purpose credit cards who used those
cards since March 1, 1997 for foreign currency transactions,
asserts, among other things, claims for alleged violations of (i)
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, (ii) the Federal Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), and (iii) as to Citibank (South Dakota), the South
Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On October 15, 2004, the
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of their Sherman Act and TILA claims but denied the
motion as to the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim
against Citibank (South Dakota). In July 2006, without admitting
any liability, all defendants, including the Citigroup defendants,
agreed to settle the IN RE CURRENCY CONVERSION FEE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION for a total of $336 million, subject to court approval.
The Citigroup defendants' share of the settlement, which has been
paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing reserves.  As
part of the settlement, the class was expanded to include not only
credit cardholders, but also debit cardholders.  On October 22,
2009, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement.
Judgment was entered on November 3, 2009. Appeals have been filed.


CITIBANK: Still Defends "Merchant" Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., is still defending itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by merchants, according to Citibank Credit Card
Issuance Trust's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, together
with Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service Association,
MasterCard International Incorporated, MasterCard Incorporated and
other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district
courts. These actions were consolidated with other related cases
in the Eastern District of New York and captioned IN RE PAYMENT
CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action are merchants that
accept Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards as well as
membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of
merchants. The pending complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of
interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card
transactions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
complaint also alleges additional Sherman Act and California law
violations, including alleged unlawful maintenance of monopoly
power and alleged unlawful contracts in restraint of trade
pertaining to various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant
conduct (including rules allegedly affecting merchants' ability,
at the point of sale, to surcharge payment card transactions or
steer customers to particular payment cards). In addition,
supplemental complaints filed against the defendants in the class
action allege that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial
public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's initial public offering
constituted a fraudulent conveyance.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief as well as joint and several liability for
treble their damages, including all interchange fees paid to all
Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and MasterCard
transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1, 2004.  The
defendants dispute that the manner in which interchange and
merchant discount fees are set, or the rules governing merchant
conduct, are anticompetitive. Fact and expert discovery has
closed. The defendants' motions to dismiss the pending class
action complaint and the supplemental complaints are pending. Also
pending are the plaintiffs' motion to certify nationwide classes
consisting of all U.S. merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard
branded payment cards and motions by both the plaintiffs and the
defendants for summary judgment.


CITICORP INC: Calif. Court Dismisses "Scala" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the class action lawsuit brought
by Mary and Sebastian Scala, on behalf of themselves and other
victims of an alleged "Madoff-style" Ponzi scheme, against
Citicorp, Citibank, and Citigroup for aiding and abetting in the
scheme, perpetrated by Joseph "Guiseppe" Viola, a Citi client.
The Plaintiffs also charged the Defendants with violations of
California business codes.

Judge Breyer granted dismissal of the class suit, without
prejudice, and held that of the Plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act of 1998 because the securities involved are "covered" by SLUSA
and because the Defendants' alleged tortious conduct occurred "in
connection with" securities transactions.

The suit is captioned Scala v. Citicorp Inc., Case No. C 10-03859
CRB, (N.D. Calif.).

A copy of the Court's March 15, 2011, dismissal order is available
at http://is.gd/UJHZLPfrom Leagle.com.


CLEARWIRE INC: Calif. Suit Complains About Internet Service
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Clearwire Corp. throttles, or slows the speed of, its so-called
high-speed Internet service, because its network can't keep up
with demand.

A copy of the Complaint in Newton v. Clearwire, Inc., Case No. 11-
cv-00783 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/Clearwire.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: MMcShane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Shawn Wanta, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          E-mail: wanta@halunenlaw.com


CONSUMERINFO.COM: Accused in Calif. Suit of Defrauding Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Consumerinfo.com defrauds customers by misrepresenting its in-
house method of calculating credit scores.

A copy of the Complaint in Waring v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-99999 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: harley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          David Woodward, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  dwoodward@heinsmills.com
                  rstenier@heinsmills.com
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605


DIGITALPOST INTERACTIVE: Defends "Leite" Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to a March 22, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Digitalpost Interactive, Inc.,
on March 17, 2011, was served with a complaint filed by Chris
Leite, on behalf of himself and as a putative class action on
behalf of the stockholders of DigitalPost Interactive, Inc., in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange,
against the Company, all members of the Company's Board of
Directors and Local.com Corporation.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed acquisition by Local of the assets of Rovion, Inc., the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, pursuant to that certain Asset
Purchase Agreement by and between the Company and Local dated
February 11, 2011, and that Local aided and abetted such breach of
fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks an injunction preventing
the Company from completing the Proposed Transaction. The
complaint also seeks to have certified as a class of plaintiffs
certain holders of the Company's common stock that are
unaffiliated with the Individual Defendants. The complaint further
seeks a court order requiring that the Individual Defendants
exercise certain fiduciary duties that were alleged by the
plaintiff not to have been previously undertaken. The complaint
also seeks a court order requiring the Company to obtain a
fairness opinion with respect to the Proposed Transaction.
Additionally, the complaint seeks certain disclosures with respect
to employment retention bonuses proposed to be received by certain
of the Company's employees, including the Individual Defendants,
in connection with future employment at Local pursuant to the
Proposed Transaction, and certain modifications to the escrow
provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Finally, the complaint
seeks an award of fees, expenses and costs to the plaintiff and
plaintiff's counsel.


DSW INC: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over RVI Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
DSW, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit over
its proposed merger with Retail Ventures, Inc., according to the
Company's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 29, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, DSW, DSW MS LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
DSW and Retail Ventures entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, pursuant to which Retail Ventures will merge with and into
DSW Merger LLC, with DSW Merger LLC continuing after the merger as
the surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of DSW.

Purported shareholders of Retail Ventures have filed two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits in an Ohio state court against
Retail Ventures and its directors and in one case, its chief
executive officer, and DSW and that in one case, DSW Merger LLC.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Retail Ventures and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement and in one case, Retail Ventures' chief executive
officer and DSW, and in the other that Retail Ventures and DSW
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the merger, as well as monetary damages. The Retail
Ventures defendants and the DSW defendants intend to defend
vigorously against these claims.


EISAI INC: Accused of Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------
Marie Ochoa, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
EISAI Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01349 (N.D. Calif. March 21, 2011),
accuses the health care company of non-payment of overtime wages,
failure to provide class members with meal and rest breaks, and
failure to provide class members with accurate itemized statements
of wages earned.

Eisai Inc. is engaged in the research, development, manufacture
and sale of pharmaceutical products in the United States.
Plaintiff Ochoa was employed by defendant in California as a "
Hospital Medical Sales Specialist" and as a "Senior Medical Sales
Specialist" from June 2002 to January 2011.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Website: http://www.bamlawca.com/


ENTERTAINMENT SHOPPING: Accused of Running Online Lotteries
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Entertainment Shopping, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01353 (N.D. Calif.
March 21, 2011), alleges that the Swoopo auctions operated by the
defendant constitute lotteries under California law and thus
violate both California Penal Code Section 319 and California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sectin 17200, et
seq.

Plaintiff John Hernandez is a citizen and resident of
Philadelphia, Pa.  Defendant operates the "entertainment shopping"
website Swoopo.com, which hosts online auctions.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          BECKHAM & MANDEL
          3400 Carlisle, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 965-5124
          E-mail: rmandel@beckham-mandel.com


EXPRESS INC: Negotiating Terms of Calif. Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express, Inc., is currently negotiating the terms of a settlement
of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California labor
laws, according to the Company's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended January 29, 2011.

Express is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit action alleging various California state labor law
violations. The complaint was originally filed on February 18,
2009, and an amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2009. The
amended complaint contains six counts: (1) failure to provide
required meal breaks to the class members and failure to pay the
class members for missed meal breaks, including premium payments
required by California law; (2) failure to provide required rest
breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class members
for missed rest breaks, including premium payments required by
California law; (3) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to
employees who were terminated or quit; (4) failure to pay overtime
or premium payments in a timely manner; (5) failure to provide
accurate wage statements; and (6) violations of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.

To avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation with
respect to this matter, on January 11, 2011, the Company reached a
settlement in principle to resolve all claims of plaintiff and
other similarly situated class members that were asserted or could
have been asserted based on the factual allegations in the final
amended complaint for this case. The parties are currently
negotiating the terms of the settlement agreement which will be
subject to court approval. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the Company will make up to a total of $4.0 million
available to pay (i) current California employees who worked
during the period commencing January 1, 2007 and ending on the
date the court gives preliminary approval for the settlement, or
May 15, 2011, whichever is earlier, (ii) former California
employees who worked during the class period and submit valid
claims, and (iii) certain legal fees and expenses on behalf of the
plaintiff and the class. After deducting legal fees and expenses
from the $4.0 million settlement amount, the proposed settlement
will require the Company to pay at least 55% of the remaining
amount to class members, irrespective of how many valid claims are
submitted. The Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
January 29, 2011 includes a reserve for its best estimate of the
amount the Company will be required to pay under the terms of the
proposed settlement. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of
the settlement agreement, the settlement is not approved by the
court, the Company elects to revoke the settlement due to 5% or
more of the class electing to opt-out of the settlement, or the
number of former employees submitting valid claims differs from
the the Company's expectations, then the amount of the reserve may
increase or decrease. The amount of any such change may be
material to the Company's results of operations or financial
condition.


FARMLAND FOODS: Protective Order Denied in "Morales" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas D. Thalken denied plaintiffs' motion for protective
order and sanctions for disobeying court order in the class
action, Maria Guzman Morales and Mauricio R. Guajardo, plaintiffs
v. Farmland Foods, Inc., and subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Case
No. 08-08CV504, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska.

Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of Farmland Foods'
hog slaughter and processing facility in Crete, Nebraska.  The
case was filed as a class action, with plaintiffs seeking relief
for alleged violations of federal wage-and-hour laws.  The court
conditionally certified a class of current and formerly employed
hourly production Farmland Foods employees in 2009.  Plaintiffs
include two named plaintiffs and nearly 300 opt-in class members.
The deadline for fact discovery in the case is currently April 8,
2011.

On February 16, 2011, Plaintiffs sought protection from having to
respond to the requests for admission served by the defendant.
Plaintiffs also asked the court to impose sanctions on the
defendant for failure to comply with the November 30, 2010, order.

Upon review, the court held that the amended requests do not
create undue burden.  The court concluded that the plaintiffs have
failed to show good cause for protection from responding to the
discovery sought.   The court further held that each party's
position was substantially justified and no sanctions against
either party are warranted.

Plaintiffs are given until April 7, 2011, to serve responses to
the Defendant's Amended First Requests for Admissions to Opt-In
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs also sought leave of court to take two additional
depositions of witnesses, Deb Paulson and Pat Schnell, identified
by the defendant as having information about the defendant's
timekeeping and payroll systems.  In connection with the request,
plaintiffs sought an extension of discovery and expert disclosure
deadlines to accommodate the depositions.

The court held that the plaintiffs have shown good cause for
expanding the number of available depositions from 15 to 17, and
that the information sought by the plaintiffs is relevant and
discoverable.

Judge Thalken directed the defendant to provide a list of
deponents on or before April 25, 2011.  He further ruled that:

   -- the Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depositions and for
      Extension of the Expert Witness Deadlines is granted; and

   -- Plaintiffs are given until May 23, 2011, to supplement
      their expert witness disclosures regarding the information
      discovered in the depositions of Deb Paulson and Pat
      Schnell.

A copy of the District Court's March 21, 2011, ruling is available
at http://is.gd/gfdfWEfrom Leagle.com.


FASTFUNDING CO: Fla. Court Reverses Arbitrator Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay P. Cohen reversed the trial court's order denying Wendy
Betts' renewed motion for appointment of an arbitrator capable of
fulfilling the appellate court's mandate as part of her plenary
appeal of the voluntary dismissal of her lawsuit against
Fastfunding Company, Inc., et al.

Appellant Wendy Betts filed the class suit in 1999, challenging
the legality of payday cash advance loans.  It was filed in the
National Arbitration Forum pursuant to court's mandate.
Contending that NAF was unable to follow the appellate court's
mandate, Ms. Betts renewed her motion for an alternative
arbitrator appointment.

The appeal is Wendy Betts V. Fastfunding The Company, Inc., Thomas
Assenzio, J. Armstrong, Cheyenne Financial Services Corp., And
Charles Hallinan, Case No. 5D09-1841, District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Fifth District.

Judge Cohen agreed with the Appellees that there is nothing for
the Appellate Court to review until an arbitrator reaches a
decision on the mandate.  Thus, the Betts lawsuit is remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings.  The Appellate Court
outlined steps the trial court and arbitrator should follow in
going forward with the lawsuit.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 18, 2011, Opinion is
available for free at http://is.gd/xqCeBZfrom Leagle.com.


FINCORP: Sandhurst Trustees Agree to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bendigo Advertiser reports that Sandhurst Trustees and its
insurers have conditionally agreed to settle the class action
brought by investors of the failed property developer Fincorp for
$29 million.

The Federal Court on March 23 approved the first step of the
proposed settlement.

It has set a date for hearing Slater and Gordon's application for
approval of the proposed settlement on May 20.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank's executive banking and wealth manager
Marnie Baker said the settlement would be fully covered by
Sandhurst Trustees insurers and if approved would not impact on
Sandhurst Trustees customers or their investments.


HANOVER FINANCE: Turner Hopkins Mull Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Gray, writing for NZ Herald News, reports that Auckland law
firm Turner Hopkins is teaming up with Australia's biggest law
practice, Slater and Gordon, to review the viability of taking a
class action lawsuit against corporate trustees appointed to
oversee the activities of failed finance companies such as Hanover
and Bridgecorp.

These claims will be in the form of proceedings on behalf of large
groups of investors in one or more of the failed finance
companies, Turner Hopkins said on its website.

"The claims are expected to allege a breach of trust on the part
of the corporate trustees appointed to monitor and supervise the
activities of the failed finance companies and protect investors,"
it said.  "Investors may well be entitled to recover economic
losses incurred by them as a result," the firm said.

Turner Hopkins, which has been working alongside Slater and Gordon
for the past 12 months in analyzing potential claims, has secured
the services of a Queen's Counsel and a number of accounting and
financial specialists.  The costs of bringing these claims will be
met through litigation funding.

"This would mean that investors would not be required to make any
payment at all for bringing this case," Turner Hopkins said.

Investors would not be exposed to any risk of adverse costs or
other awards against them should the claim be unsuccessful, the
firm said.

Turner Hopkins is seeking expressions of interest from investors
who have sustained losses following the collapse of any of the New
Zealand finance companies during the period between 2006 to 2009.

Bridgecorp collapsed in July 2007 owing $459 million.  The
following year, Hanover Finance froze repayments to investors owed
$554 million.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits, according to the Company's March 22, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company is a named defendant in at least 45 pending product
liability or other lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product
recalls initiated by the Company in late 2008 and early 2009. The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result of the
ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed
in 2007 and 2008. The lawsuits are pending in federal and state
courts in various jurisdictions. The 45 pending lawsuits include
10 that have settled but have not yet been dismissed. In the 45
pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 31
plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, and the plaintiffs in the
remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability are based on various theories of
recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability,
negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and
other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Two of the lawsuits
are putative class actions, one of the lawsuits is on behalf of 29
claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual lawsuits or
have two plaintiffs. The Company believes that these lawsuits are
without merit and is vigorously defending against them, except
where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate. In addition to
the 45 pending lawsuits, there are at least 31 pending pre-
litigation claims (at least 6 of which involve a death) that may
or may not eventually become lawsuits. The Company has also
resolved a significant number of related product liability
lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In addition to self insurance,
the Company possesses third party product liability insurance,
which the Company believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits
and claims.

The Board in December 2008 appointed a special committee in
response to the initiation of a series of putative class action
shareholder lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities
laws by the Company and certain individuals, the initiation of
lawsuits alleging violations under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), as well as the receipt by the Company of an
informal inquiry from the SEC and certain requests for information
from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern
District of Missouri and FDA representatives working with that
office.

With respect to the securities and ERISA claims and related
governmental inquiries, the Company maintains directors' and
officers' liability insurance that its believes should cover a
portion of the defense and potential liability costs associated
with these matters. Nonetheless, the insurance does not extend to
all of these expenditures, and the insurance limits may be
insufficient even with respect to expenditures that would
otherwise be covered. Moreover, the insurance carriers have
reserved their rights to contest coverage under the insurance
policies on multiple grounds. The expenses associated with these
matters have been substantial, and the Company expects that they
will continue to be so. Furthermore, defense of the litigations
and cooperation with ongoing governmental inquiries is expected to
divert management attention from normal course business
operations. An adverse outcome with respect to these matters could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial position and results of operations.


KING ARCHITECTURAL: 7th Circuit Remands CE Design Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Richard E. Posner, Daniel A. Manion, David F.
Hamilton vacated the class certification order in the action
styled as CE Design Limited, on its own behalf and that of a class
v. King Architectural Metals, Inc., Case No. 10-8050 (7th Cir.).

Appellee CE Design is a civil engineering firm in the Chicago
area, who has filed at numerous class action suits under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  It purports to represent a
class who received unsolicited faxed advertisements from King
Architectural Metals.

Apellant King Architectural Metals is a manufacturer of metal
building components.

The Appellate Court held that the district judge did not give
adequate consideration to the cumulative significance of CE Design
President John E. Pezl's testimony, the publication of CE's fax
number in the "Blue Book," and its publication on CE's website, in
ruling that CE Design was an adequate representative of the class.

The class suit is remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 18, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/ygt6plfrom Leagle.com.


LEXXIOM INC: Sued Over Bogus Debt Reduction Services
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Debt Choice, of Costa Mesa, Calif., Lexxiom, of Fontana, and
attorney Miguel Iniguez and his Iniguez Law Firm, of Downey, "prey
on consumers" by charging "unconscionable amounts" to "provide
virtually no services."

A copy of the Complaint in Hope v. Debt Choice, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-_____ (E.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/Debt.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN LAW
          518 East Tyler Street
          Athens, TX 75751
          Telephone: (903) 677-5333


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Zicam Securities Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the unanimous Supreme Court
ruled on March 22 that a class of shareholders can proceed with
securities fraud claims against Arizona-based Matrixx Initiatives
and three executives for their alleged decision to conceal
statistically insignificant side effects associated with their
Zicam nasal gels and sprays.

Affirming the October 2009 decision of the United States Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the high court justices found that
the shareholders adequately defended their claim that reasonable
investors could have been concerned if they were notified that
Zicam Cold Remedy, which accounts for 70% of the company's sales,
caused some users to lose their sense of smell -- a condition
called anosmia.

While researchers had notified Zicam that they were publishing
studies about the side effect in 2003, Zicam told the public that
it was "poised for growth" and had "very strong momentum."

A federal judge granted Zicam summary judgment, but the 9th
Circuit revived the shareholders' complaint.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the Supreme Court's unanimous
opinion, which affirms the San Francisco-based federal appeals
panel's finding.

"A lack of statistically significant data does not mean that
medical experts have no reliable basis for inferring a causal link
between a drug and adverse events," Justice Sotomayor wrote.  "As
Matrixx itself concedes, medical experts rely on other evidence to
establish an inference of causation.  We note that courts
frequently permit expert testimony on causation based on evidence
other than statistical significance."

The justices noted that the Food and Drug Administration warned
Zicam about the risk of anosmia in its product by pointing to 130
complaints it had received and the growing body of studies about
nasal sprays and gels in scientific journals.

"Given that medical professionals and regulators act on the basis
of evidence of causation that is not statistically significant, it
stands to reason that in certain cases reasonable investors would
as well," Justice Sotomayor wrote.

A copy of the Opinion of the Court in Mattrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
et al. v. Siracusano, et al., Case No. 09-cv-01156  (U.S.), is
available at:


     http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1156.pdf


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Class Actions to Be Merged
------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Munsil and Jeff Mosier, writing for Dallas News, report that
a federal judge ruled on March 23 that two class-action lawsuits
filed on behalf of fans displaced by seating issues at Super Bowl
XLV should be consolidated into one, and will remain in federal
court.

One of the suits, originally filed in state court in Dallas County
by the Dallas firm Goldfarb Branham, was transferred to federal
court at the request of the defendants -- the Dallas Cowboys and
the National Football League.

On March 23, District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn denied Goldfarb
Branham's motion to move the class-action lawsuit back to state
court.  Instead, she ruled that it should be combined with another
suit filed in federal court by a Los Angeles-area firm, Eagan
Avenatti, on behalf of the same class of people.

This week, the judge will decide on paper, or hold a hearing, to
determine which of the law firms will get control of the case.
Once lead counsel is determined, the firms will have to submit a
consolidated class-action complaint.

The complaints revolve around more than 1,000 temporary seats that
workers were unable to finish in time for the Feb. 6 game.

About 400 fans had no seats at all and had to stand throughout the
game.  Another 2,000 were moved to seats other than ones they
purchased or were delayed in getting into the game.

For the 400 people without seats, the NFL made three different
settlement offers -- a $2,400 payment plus a ticket to next year's
Super Bowl; free airfare, hotel and tickets to any future Super
Bowl; or reimbursement of their expenses for Super Bowl XLV.

The additional 2,000 fans who were inconvenienced have been
offered either a refund of their ticket's face value or a ticket
to any future Super Bowl.

Since Eagan Avenatti already filed a motion asking to be given
control of the combined class-action suit in federal court, Lynn
gave Goldfarb Branham one week to file a similar motion.

Lawyers for the NFL and Cowboys on March 23 said they have no
opinion on which firm should get control of the class-action suit.

Attorneys at the March 23 hearing and legal experts said the NFL
and Cowboys' request to move the case to federal court was a
standard maneuver, as federal courts have reputations as tougher
venues for getting class-action certification.

The 2005 Class Action Fairness Acts gives defendants the right to
have lawsuits removed from state to federal court in certain
circumstances.


NEW JERSEY: NJ App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of "Lerro" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judges R. B. Coleman and Marie E. Lihotz affirmed the dismissal of
the class action, Bonita M. Lerro, individually and as class
representative on behalf of others similarly situated, v. New
Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family
Development, Office of Child Support Services), Case No. A-0910-
09T3 (N.J. Super. Ct.).

Plaintiff is a custodial parent of two children whose support
payments are tracked by the State case registry.  Plaintiff filed
the class action complaint on behalf of all individuals who have
been participants in the child support system serviced by
defendant since October 1, 2000, and who did not have interest
calculated on their child support arrears.

Plaintiff instituted a class action suit seeking to compel the
State to comply with federal and state law, which requires the
registry to keep track of interest on a periodic basis.  The
Appellate Court opined that the calculation of child support
obligations and interest are matters of funding incentive and
administrative cost efficiency.

A copy of the Appellate Court's March 17, 2011, dismissal order is
available at http://is.gd/BzitEefrom Leagle.com.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Class Status Denied in Amended Lifschitz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry Alan Burns dismissed the amended complaint, Sandra
Lifschitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Nextwave Wireless Inc., Allen Salmasi, George C. Alex and Frank
A. Cassou, Case No. 08cv1697-Lab (S.D. Calif.).

Judge Burns held that the amended complaint still doesn't satisfy
the pleading standards for a securities class action set forth in
Dura Pharms v. Broudo and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

The District Court noted that it previously dismissed the
Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because it did not contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief."  The amended complaint remains inadequate,
but not so inadequate that it should be dismissed with prejudice,
the District Court stated.

"Until Plaintiff can whittle down the allegedly false and
misleading statements to capture the core statements at issue, and
identify specific confidential witness allegations that reveal
those statements to be knowingly false and misleading, the Court
can't determine whether this case deserves to go forward," Judge
Burns said.

Plaintiff is given until April 6, 2011, to file an amended
complaint.

A copy of the District Court's March 16, 2011, dismissal order is
available at http://is.gd/T5SP93from Leagle.com.


NORTHWEST PIPE: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss to Conclude May 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipe Company is still defending itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act in New York, according to the Company's
March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 20, 2009, a complaint against the Company, captioned
Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of the
Company's stock.  In addition to the Company, Brian W. Dunham, the
Company's former President and CEO, and Stephanie J. Welty, the
Company's former CFO, are named as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
by making false or misleading statements between April 23, 2008
and November 11, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock during the same period
and seeks damages for losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing.

A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et
al., No. C09-5791 RBL, was filed against the Company in the same
court on December 22, 2009. In addition to the Company, Brian W.
Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R. Tagmyer, the Company's
current Chairman of the Board, are named as defendants in the
Plumbers complaint.  In the Plumbers complaint, as in the Richard
complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of the Company's
stock and asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements between
April 23, 2008 and November 11, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
during that period, and seeks damages for losses caused by the
alleged wrongdoing.

The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on
February 25, 2010.  Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action. Defendants and lead plaintiff subsequently
agreed that defendants did not need to respond immediately to
either of the two outstanding complaints, and that a consolidated
amended complaint would be filed within 45 days of the Company
having completed the filing of the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 and its 2009
Form 10-K with the SEC.  A consolidated amended complaint was
filed by the plaintiff on December 21, 2010, and the Company's
motion to dismiss was filed on February 25, 2011, as were similar
motions filed by the individual defendants.  Under the scheduling
order currently in effect, briefing on those motions will conclude
by May 24, 2011.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims.  This securities litigation is at an early
stage and, at this time, it is not possible to predict its
outcome.  Therefore, the Company has not accrued any charges
related to this litigation.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation continues to defend itself
against a securities class action lawsuit in New York, according
to Novastar Financial, Inc.'s March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case include NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company, and several
unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that
the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by making allegedly false statements regarding
mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased
by plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. The
Court has not ruled on this motion and discovery regarding the
plaintiff's claims has not commenced. The Company cannot provide
an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the case and expects to defend the case
vigorously.


OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say directors of
OptionsXpress Holdings, an online brokerage, sold the company too
cheaply through an unfair process to Charles Schwab Corp., for
$17.91 a share or $1 billion.

A copy of the Complaint in Kolton v. Gray, et al., Case No.
11CH10657 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur T. Susman, Esq.
          Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
          SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466
          E-mail: asusman@shhllp.com
                  mheffner@shhllp.com
                  mhurst@shhllp.com


PERPETUAL TRUST: Turner Hopkins Mulls Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niko Kloeten, writing for The National Business Review, reports
that another local law firm is gearing up to sue the trustees of
failed finance companies in class action proceedings on behalf of
thousands of investors left out of pocket.

As NBR reported recently, Christchurch lawyer Grant Cameron is
already working on a class action case against Perpetual Trust
over the collapse of Capital + Merchant Finance.

Now Auckland based boutique law firm, Turner Hopkins, says it is
working with Australian law firm, Slater & Gordon, to investigate
launching class action proceedings of its own.

Turner Hopkins partner Andrew Hooker says his firm in
investigating potential claims against the trustees and other
entities liable for losses suffered by investors following the
collapse of finance companies.

He said Turner Hopkins has been working alongside Slater & Gordon
for the past 12 months analyzing these potential claims.

"The claims are expected to allege a breach of trust on the part
of the corporate trustees appointed to monitor and supervise the
activities of the failed finance companies and protect investors.

"If successful, investors may well be entitled to recover economic
losses incurred by them as a result of these failings," Mr. Hooker
said.

Any legal case would be funded and so people joining would not be
required to pay any legal fees unless successful.

These types of arrangements are common in Australia but unusual at
present in New Zealand, although they are tipped to become more
common.

They allow cash strapped investors to sue when they would
otherwise not have the financial resources.

Turner Hopkins has invited any interested investors to contact
them to register their interest.

Slater & Gordon recently announced it had reached a settlement
agreement with the trustees of the failed finance company,
Fincorp.

At least seven New Zealanders are expected to benefit from the
settlement, which could have wide ranging implications in New
Zealand.

While Australian and New Zealand law differ in some respects, the
Fincorp case involves very similar circumstances to what occurred
in New Zealand.

Turner Hopkins says this raises the prospect New Zealand investors
may be able to receive compensation from trustee companies
following the collapses of local finance companies over the past
few years.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Defends Class Suits Over Investigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plainscapital Corporation is defending itself against class suits
over certain investigations concerning antitrust and securities
violations, according to the Company's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2006, First Southwest Company received subpoenas from
the SEC and the United States Department of Justice in connection
with an investigation of possible antitrust and securities law
violations, including bid-rigging, in the procurement of
guaranteed investment contracts and other investment products for
the reinvestment of bond proceeds by municipalities. The
investigation is industry-wide and includes approximately 30 or
more firms, including some of the largest U.S. investment firms.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide
practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases
filed in several different federal courts by various state and
local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a
similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities. All
claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were
subsequently dismissed. However, the plaintiffs in these purported
class actions have filed amended complaints against other
entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a
defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.

Additionally, as a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into
industry-wide practices, FSC has been named as a defendant in
twenty individual lawsuits (of which three were filed after
December 31, 2010). These lawsuits have been brought by several
California public entities and two New York non-profit
corporations that do not seek to certify a class. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred these cases to
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
The California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act. The New York
plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
the New York Donnelly Act. The allegations against FSC are very
limited in scope. FSC filed an answer to seventeen lawsuits, will
timely answer the three unanswered lawsuits, and intends to defend
itself vigorously in these individual actions. The relief sought
is unspecified monetary damages.


RADIENT PHARMA: Accused by NYSE Amex of Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Feuerstein, writing for TheStreet, reports that regulators at
the NYSE Amex have accused Radient Pharmaceuticals of allegedly
misleading investors and the exchange about the company's
relationship with the Mayo Clinic, the company admitted on
March 22.

Radient has claimed in public statements that it was working with
the Mayo Clinic on a clinical validation study of the company's
cancer-screening test Onko-Sure.  Those statements led investors
to believe that the prestigious research hospital was an active
partner with Radient on Onko-Sure's development.  However, as
reported first by TheStreet, Mayo Clinic denied working with
Radient on the Onko-Sure clinical trial, explaining that the
hospital only sold blood samples to Radient for use in the Onko-
Sure study.

Radient claims it has been truthful in reporting the nature of the
company's relationship with the Mayo Clinic, according to
statements issued in response to TheStreet's story.

NYSE Amex halted trading in Radient's stock for more than 24 hours
following publication of TheStreet's story on March 7.  Nine days
later, on March 16, regulators at the NYSE Amex sent Radient a
notice informing the company of its failure to comply with the
exchange's disclosure requirements for "allegedly omitting
material information" in a written submission to the exchange,
according to an 8-K filed by Radient on March 22 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its 8-K filing, Radient admits that NYSE Amex regulators
specifically accuse the company of allegedly misleading investors
about the company's relationship with the Mayo Clinic.  Radient
omitted any mention of the Mayo Clinic in a press release issued
on March 22 regarding the NYSE Amex matter, referring instead to a
"collaboration with a third party not-for-profit group practice."

The new accusations leveled against Radient by regulators at the
NYSE Amex add to the company's troubles.  Radient is already
facing delisting from the Amex for failing to meet the exchange's
listing standards.  Radient is trying to appeal the delisting
notice.  On March 22, Radient said a previously scheduled appeal
hearing was postponed and is being rescheduled.

In addition to its troubles with NYSE Amex, Radient is facing a
class-action lawsuit accusing the company of misrepresenting its
dealing with the Mayo Clinic over the Onko-Sure test.  Radient
hired the law firm DLA Piper to represent the company in the
class-action lawsuit.

Radient shares were down 8% to 40 cents a share in March 22
trading.


RENTECH INC: Settles Suits Over Fin'l Restatements for $1.8MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc. on March 23 disclosed that it has reached agreements
to settle all of the class action lawsuits pending in federal
court and all of the shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in
state and federal court against the Company and a number of its
current and former directors and officers.  The lawsuits relate to
the Company's restatement in December 2009 of certain of its
financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009.  The Company believes that it is in
the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a
reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive
litigation.  The Company and the individual defendants have denied
any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations
contained in these lawsuits.

The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits pending
in United States District Court for the Central District of
California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8
million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys fees and expenses.  The settlements for the consolidated
shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in United States District
Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master
File No. BC430553) provide that the Company will adopt certain
governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to
pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of up to $300,000.
The Company expects that over 90% of the aggregate securities
class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments will
be covered by its insurance carriers.

The settlements are subject to court approval and certain other
conditions including notice to the Company's stockholders.

Incorporated in 1981, Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/
-- provides clean energy solutions.


SEPTA: Trial Court Declaration in "Houston" Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court
declaration in the action, Claudette Houston, Louise Board, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Case No. 1445
C.D. 2010, that SEPTA is required to comply with the mandates of
Section 1797 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law
when calculating payment of personal injury protection benefits on
behalf of eligible claimants.

Section 1797 of the MVFRL is a cost containment provision that
requires insurers to adjust medical providers' bills and pay
medical expenses at no more than 110% of the allowances applicable
under the Medicare program.

Appellant SEPTA is a regional transportation authority, and
provides transportation within the city of Philadelphia and its
four contiguous counties.  Appellees Msses. Houston and Board are
passengers of a SEPTA bus, who were both injured when the bus
collided with a car in 2002.  Appellees filed a class action
complaint against SEPTA for personal injury protection or PIP
benefits.  Appellees argued that compliance with Section 1797(a)
would result in a higher percentage of their total medical bills
being paid.

The Commonwealth Court memorandum and opinion, penned by Judge Dan
Pellegrini, held that Appellees and the putative class members
they represent are personally aggrieved by SEPTA's actions and
therefore have standing to pursue the matter.  As SEPTA capped
each Appellee's medical benefits at $5,000, the Appellees incurred
out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The Commonwealth Court further noted that the MVFRL is to be
liberally construed in order to afford the greatest possible
coverage to injured claimants, and the interpretation advanced by
SEPTA is contrary to public interest and contrary to the purpose
of the MVFRL.

The Commonwealth Court's memorandum and opinion dated March 10,
2011, is concurred by Judges Johnny J. Butler and Rochelle S.
Friedman, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NK1q0Rfrom
Leagle.com.


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SkyWest Airlines stiffs its
airport agents for overtime, a class action claims in Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lessard, et al. v. Skywest Airlines,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1379930 ( Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/23/SkyWest.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  dzelenski@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          John P. Dorigan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
          82-237 Odlum Drive
          Indio, CA 92201
          Telephone: (760) 342-8074


TENET HEALTHCARE: To Settle Class Action Over Patient Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Pearson and Allen Johnson Jr., writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Tenet Healthcare Corp., the third- largest publicly
traded hospital chain, agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit
over patient deaths at a New Orleans medical center in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.

Families of patients who died sued the company over the actions of
officials at Memorial Medical Center in August 2005.  At least 34
patients died at the hospital after the hurricane knocked out
power and the temperature inside the building rose to more than
100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius).  The hospital's
windows couldn't be opened.

The family of Leonard Preston, who sued on behalf of people who
were at the hospital or had a relative who died, claimed the
center wasn't prepared to care for patients and had no emergency
plan to evacuate.  Patients waited four days to be rescued.  A
trial began on March 22 in state court in New Orleans with jury
selection.

"This has been a long and difficult situation for all concerned,"
Rick Black, a Tenet spokesman, said today in an e- mailed
statement.  "The parties are pleased to be able to announce that
an amicable resolution has been reached."

Both sides agreed to keep the terms confidential until the court
approves the settlement, Mr. Black said.  The lawsuit filed in
2005 was the first against Tenet to go to trial, Black said on
March 22 in an e-mail.  The Dallas-based company settled 11 other
cases over Katrina, he said.

'Reasonable Actions'

Judge Rosemary Ledet disclosed the settlement in court on
March 23.  "I cannot discuss anything until there has been
preliminary approval by the court," she said.

Joe Bruno, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, didn't immediately
return a phone call and e-mail seeking comment on the settlement.

"Tenet and Memorial were reasonable in their actions," Tony
Clayton, an attorney for the hospital, said on March 22 in an
interview.

Katrina damaged six Tenet hospitals with losses totaling more than
$150 million.  Memorial Medical and Lindy Boggs Medical Center,
also in New Orleans, were closed for months after the hurricane.

Mr. Preston was recovering from surgery to amputate his knee and
awaiting transfer to a rehabilitation facility when Katrina
struck, according to the complaint.  He died after being
"abandoned by the staff" following the storm, according to the
complaint.

The hospital failed to implement an adequate safety evacuation
plan and chose certain patients for evacuation and abandoned
others, the Preston family said in the complaint.  The hospital
also abandoned patients without any type of life support,
according to court records.

Fair Jury

Katrina, the third-deadliest U.S. hurricane, flooded 80 percent of
New Orleans, killing 1,800 people in Louisiana and Mississippi and
causing more than $80 billion in damage.

Memorial Medical filed requests before jury selection on March 22
for a mistrial and change of venue, citing media reports of
victims being "cooked" to death in the heat in the facility
following the hurricane.

"It will be virtually impossible for us to get a fair jury,"
Mr. Clayton told Ledet on March 22.

The case is Preston v. Tenet Healthcaresystems Memorial Medical
Center Inc., 05-11709-B-15, Civil District Court, New Orleans
Parish.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek to Preserve Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal reports that
plaintiffs' lawyers representing shareholders of Toyota Motor
Corp. are fighting to preserve claims brought under a Japanese
securities law that executives failed to inform investors about
the problems associated with sudden acceleration, according to
court documents filed on March 21.

The suit asserts claims for shareholders of American depository
shares -- Toyota shares sold on the New York Stock Exchange --
under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for a class of
shareholders who bought common stock on the Tokyo Stock Exchange
under Japan's Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.  The
Japanese law claims were added following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision last year in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, in
which the justices found that, under U.S. securities law,
investors who purchase a foreign company's stock on a foreign
exchange lack standing to sue in U.S. courts.

In its motion to dismiss, Toyota sought to toss out the Japanese
law claims, could prove the largest class of shareholders in the
case.

"There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about permitting
investors to sue Toyota in the United States while also giving
Toyota the benefits of its home law," wrote David Stickney, a
partner in the San Diego office of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman, one of the lead attorneys in the multidistrict
litigation against Toyota over shareholder losses.  "This case
also has a strong connection to the United States, as the
underlying wrongful conduct largely occurred in this country and
particularly in California, and many of the witnesses and much of
the relevant evidence are located here."

A hearing on Toyota's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
is scheduled for June 6.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Toyota issued false and
misleading statements during conference calls with investors, in
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in
interviews with the press -- all of which artificially inflated
its shares' values.  The class covers investors who owned shares
between May 10, 2005, and Feb. 2, 2010.

Toyota has insisted that most of the statements at issue either
were not false or misleading or that any executives knew that
their statements were not true.  Furthermore, the company argued,
the statements had no material effect on Toyota's shares.

Toyota's motion "mischaracterizes the Complaint's allegations,
attempts to spin facts and ignores or glosses over allegations
explaining Defendants' materially false and misleading
statements," Mr. Stickney replied in court papers.  "Defendants'
representations about safety and quality went to the heart of
Toyota's reputation and consumer appeal."

In support of the Japanese claims, Stickney attached a declaration
by Minoru Tokumoto, professor of law at the University of Tsukuba
School of Law and of counsel to Masuda & Partners in Tokyo; and
Eiji Masuda, managing partner of Masuda & Partners.  They agreed
that a U.S. judgment would be enforceable and present no conflict
with existing law in Japan.  Mr. Stickney also attached a
declaration by Matthew Wilson, associate professor of law at the
University of Wyoming College of Law and an expert on Japanese
law.

Toyota has recalled about 10 million of its vehicles due to
defects in accelerator pedals and floor mats that have been blamed
for incidences of sudden acceleration.  Toyota has agreed to pay
$48.8 million in fines for failing to inform government regulators
immediately of the problems.


TRANS UNION CORP: Dist. Ct. Denies Motions to Clarify in MDL Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman denied motions to clarify the term
"aggregated action" filed in the action In re Trans Union Corp.
Privacy Litigation, Case No. 00 C 4729, MDL Docket No. 1350 (U.S.
Dist. Ct., N.D. Illinois).

A generous settlement for a class of more than 190 million people,
who had a credit rating with Trans Union from 1987 to 2008, was
reached in the MDL case.  The settlement included the creation by
Trans Union of a $75 million cash fund and more than $30 million
of in-kind relief.  The cash fund was to be used to pay class
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, the named plaintiffs, and costs of
administering the settlement, and to reimburse Trans Union for
payment of individual claims -- referred to as post-settlement
claims or claimants, or "PSCs" -- made by class members whose
credit information Trans Union allegedly improperly disclosed.

Subsequently, principally as a result of solicitations by certain
lawyers, more than 73,000 lawsuits have been filed by post-
settlement claimants and more then 30,000 informal demands have
been made to Trans-Union.

In January 2011, the MDL Counsel, joined by Dawn Wheelahan and
certain Texas counsel, filed motions to clarify the meaning of the
term "Aggregated Action," contending that the groups of lawsuits
and informal claims against Trans Union constituting the PSCs were
"Aggregated Actions."

Judge Gettleman held that since the class settlement agreement
define the term "Aggregated Actions" to exclude the types of
claims represented by the PSCs, the Motions to Clarify must be
denied.

Judge Gettlement said denial of the Motions to Clarify does not
constitute a decision either in favor of or against Trans Union's
ability to seek reimbursement from the settlement fund for any
payments that it makes to the PSCs.

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2011, Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/xTq7ntfrom Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Loses $3.5-Mil. Lending Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
After a three-month trial, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury
returned a $3,520,000 lending discrimination verdict on March 23
against Wells Fargo Bank. (Opal Jones, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al. Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. BC337821)

The class action lawsuit alleged the bank consistently and
knowingly discriminated against borrowers in minority
neighborhoods, resulting in these borrowers paying more for their
loans than borrowers in non-minority areas of Los Angeles County.
The jury found that the race, color, ancestry and/or national
origin of the plaintiffs and the class they represent was a
"motivating reason" for Wells Fargo's conduct.

The jury found for 880 borrowers who obtained their loans from
Wells Fargo branch locations in minority communities.  Because the
class plaintiffs brought the suit under the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, qualifying class members will receive a statutory damage
award of $4,000 per loan.

Representing the class are A. Barry Cappello and Leila J. Noel,
partners with Cappello & Noel, LLP, a Santa Barbara boutique
litigation firm specializing in lender misconduct.  "The culture
at Wells Fargo Bank only pays lip service to fair lending," says
Mr. Cappello who is recognized as the pioneer of lender liability
law.  "No systems are in place to prevent managers from engaging
in the most insidious form of discrimination against customers who
are least equipped to deal with it."

In 2002, Wells Fargo introduced a computer program called "Loan
Economics," which gave loan officers the ability to offer loan
applicants lower pricing through reduced interest rates and
points.  The class action alleged that loan officers in
predominately non-minority bank branches could use the program to
price loans, while loan officers in predominantly minority bank
branches could not.  The evidence presented at trial was that
Wells Fargo management prevented the branches in minority
neighborhoods from using the program.

"The Area Manager who oversaw bank branches in minority
communities could make more money for himself if those minority
branches didn't use the pricing program," says Ms. Noel.  "The
discriminatory practice allowed him to benefit financially at the
expense of his minority customers.  When the branch managers and
loan officers who worked in minority locations eventually learned
that their counterparts in non-minority branches could use the
program, they were outraged."

Class members were defined as borrowers who obtained a first trust
deed-secured loan from Wells Fargo Bank or Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage in an amount greater than $150,000 between May 2002 and
December 2005.  Members must have applied for their loans at Wells
Fargo branches located within specific areas of Los Angeles
County.  A notice will be sent shortly to bank customers who are
eligible for compensation.

Cappello & Noel is a commercial litigation law firm.  Partners
have successfully tried commercial litigation cases resulting in
over $1 billion in verdicts, settlements, class action awards &
workouts for clients.


WELLS REAL ESTATE: Trial Date for Piedmont REIT Suit to be Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date is still to be set in a putative class action lawsuit
against Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., according to Wells
Real Estate Fund X LP's March 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a putative
class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation,
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, one of
the Partnership's General Partners; Wells Capital, the corporate
general partner of Wells Partners, the Partnership's other General
Partner; Wells Management, the Partnership's property manager;
certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and
certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors
of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of
fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 26, 2007, as amended.  The complaint sought, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal
proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to
obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT. The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September 20, 2009,
the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.
On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial. A trial date has not
been set.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *